House Approves Legislation That Mandates the Disclosure of Political Spending

WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday approved legislation to curtail the ability of corporations and other special interest groups to influence elections by requiring greater disclosure of their role in paying for campaign advertising.

The bill is intended to counter a Supreme Court ruling in January that the federal government may not ban political spending by corporations and other advocacy groups, like labor unions. The ruling overturned two precedents, including a 1990 ruling that upheld restrictions on political spending by corporations.

The vote was 219 to 206, with just two Republicans joining Democrats in favor. Opposed were 170 Republicans and 36 Democrats. Republican leaders assailed the bill as an infringement on free speech and the First Amendment, and its chances are shaky in the Senate.

Known as the Disclose Act, the acronym for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, the bill would ban spending on political campaigns by corporations that have $10 million or more in government contracts as well as by American corporations that are controlled by foreign citizens.

The bill would also establish rules and restrictions for American corporations and interest groups, including a prohibition of corporations and other interest groups in coordinating spending with candidates or political parties, and a mandate that chief executives appear in any advertisement paid for by their companies.

But in an uncomfortable twist, to generate support for a measure aimed at reining in special interests, Democrats felt compelled to include exemptions for some of the most powerful special interest groups, including the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club and other large nonprofit organizations.

Still, supporters of the bill said it would discourage corporations and special interest groups from pouring money into political campaigns, including this year’s midterm races, by requiring them to disclose their spending, and would prevent foreign interests from influencing the selection of American elected officials.

“If you are British Petroleum, if you are a Chinese wealth fund that controls a corporation here in the United States, if you are Citgo controlled by Hugo Chávez, you have no business spending money in U.S. elections, overtly or secretly,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland and primary author of the bill.

Mr. Van Hollen rejected assertions that the bill would limit free speech. “You can say anything you want in any ad you want,” he said. “What you can’t do is hide behind the darkness, not tell people who you are.”

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, urged passage of the bill, saying it would prevent wealthy corporate interests from swaying elections. “With this bill, no longer will corporations be able to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,” Ms. Pelosi said. “By voting yes, we are putting power back into the hands of the voters.”

But Republicans said Democrats were less interested in bringing sunlight to campaign spending than they were in trying to gain advantage in this year’s midterm elections.

“They want to use their majority here in the House to silence their political opponents for just one election,” the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said in a floor speech. “They have produced a bill full of loopholes designed to help their friends while silencing their political opponents.”

Mr. Boehner added: “We in the House take an oath, to preserve to protect and to defend our Constitution. And anyone who votes for this bill today, I’ll tell you, is violating the oath that they took when they became a member of this organization.”

Republicans derisively noted that Mr. Van Hollen, the prime sponsor of the bill, is also the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, responsible for coordinating the party’s election efforts and defending its majority in November.

Among those to make that point was the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has made opposition to restrictions on campaign financing one of the signature priorities of his career in Congress.

Senate Republicans control enough votes to filibuster the measure, and given the tense climate of a midterm election year, it is not clear that Senate Democrats will have the stomach for a protracted fight.

A version of this article appears in print on June 25, 2010, on Page A24 of the New York edition with the headline: House Approves Legislation That Mandates the Disclosure of Political Spending. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe